Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Looking to join a climate community? Try your workplace.

News Feed
Wednesday, June 21, 2023

Welcome back to our series on personal climate action, exploring new frameworks for the question: “How do I make a difference?” So far, we’ve covered stories of people making waves by raising their voices in court and expressing their climate values during some of the most meaningful moments in their lives. This week’s piece explores the idea that one of the most powerful individual actions you might take is joining or organizing a climate community — and we’re focusing on a particular space where people are already a part of a collective that can advocate for change: the workplace. Most of us spend a lot of time at our jobs. And even if you don’t work in an obvious climate field, just about every sector touches or is impacted by the climate crisis in some way. Grist’s climate solutions fellow Katie Myers explores how unions and other organized groups of workers are banding together over shared concerns, and using their collective power to advocate for greener, safer, and more just practices from their employers. The vision “Our job is to organize the people. Because if you don’t organize the people, you can shout all you want, you can write all you want about a policy issue and the climate and environmental problems, but it’s not gonna go anywhere.” Baldemar Velasquez, president of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee The spotlight Caitlyn McLaren is a nurse at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami. She was active in student environmental organizing while in college, but after starting full-time work in healthcare, long hours and a stressful work environment began to take their toll. Like so many, she found that she no longer could make time for climate justice organizing. But then, about four years ago, she discovered that she could continue to be a climate advocate — at work, rather than outside of it. “A member approached the president of our local [union chapter] and said, ‘You know, climate change is something that I’m really concerned about,’” McLaren recalls. And the SEIU 1991 Climate Committee was born. The committee gave hospital workers a chance to discuss some of their shared concerns about the climate impacts of their industry — everything from the chemicals in use at the hospital to the massive amount of waste generated by disposable dishware to the carcinogenic smoke from the gas used to cauterize tissue in the operating room. Since the committee was formed, McLaren and her colleagues have successfully diverted over 27,000 pounds of medical waste from the landfill and installed charging stations for electric cars, with several other campaigns still active. McLaren says being in a unionized workplace made it possible for her to get involved with environmental advocacy again. “Having a union can help with creating that space for people to actually be able to think about the big picture issues, because we’re so busy with the day-to-day grind of our job,” she says. Often, labor unions are associated with opposition to the environmental movement, particularly the green energy transition that would take away already imperiled jobs in coal, oil, and other fossil fuels. But workers — unionized and not — have also been at the forefront of many environmental movements. Even if we don’t think of our jobs as climate-related, most industries have climate impacts, and workers have used that fact to push their workplaces toward a more responsible relationship with the environment. Among that number are healthcare workers like McLaren, Amazon employees and Uber drivers working to reduce their companies’ emissions, steel workers pushing for a green transition, and many, many more who have seen their workplaces as sites of agitation for climate justice, and as opportunities to create a healthier world. The phrase “environmental justice” actually has roots in the labor movement. Farm Labor Organizing Committee president Baldemar Velasquez says that the farmworkers’ movement, as well as members of a rural North Carolina Black community threatened by a proposed landfill, helped popularize the phrase at the The Michigan Conference on Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazard in 1990. With it came a growing awareness of environmental racism, and of environmental struggle as extending beyond the prevailing middle-class white concerns about conservation. Conversations about environmental issues began to focus on the impacts of industry and extraction on predominantly Black and brown, low-income, and immigrant communities. “We were challenging the mainstream environmentalists,” Velasquez says. And the relationship between workers and environmental justice goes back well before the origins of the phrase. In the 1960s, groups like the Memphis sanitation workers’ strike of 1968 (where Martin Luther King Jr. gave his final speech) and the immigrant-led United Farmworkers’ Organizing Committee, whose first contracts included protection from certain pesticides, spearheaded the idea that workers could rally around environmental causes, and that many environmental issues were workers’ issues, too. Farmworkers are among the most vulnerable social groups in the United States, often migrants on visas with very few legal protections. For them, climate change is a matter of life and death, with small shifts in heat and the growing season directly impacting their ability to make a living and survive a day’s work. Today, farmworkers continue to push for climate-specific protections, including sun and heat protection, disaster insurance, and language-inclusive wildfire safety and evacuation information. Velasquez says that the Farm Labor Organizing Committee is also focused on battles with corrupt contractors and securing collective bargaining agreements for growers. “I think that organizing, grassroots membership organizations, is the vehicle to begin to address some of these individual problems,” Velasquez says. “If there’s a worker that’s got a problem,” he adds, “I love hearing those people, because then I challenge them to do something about it.” Liz Ratzloff, the co-director of the Labor Network for Sustainability, first entered the labor movement as a graduate student worker at the University of Michigan, where she organized for divestment from fossil fuels and to expand affordable transportation and housing. Now, she coordinates with workers and unions to organize at the intersection of climate justice and workers’ rights. She has worked with educators, postal workers, auto workers, and railroad workers, just to name a few. “In order to build the power to be able to take on the fossil fuel industry, we need the labor movement, environmental and climate justice groups, [and] frontline and historically marginalized communities to unite around using climate action to address social inequities,” Ratzloff says. By organizing teachers, for instance, Ratzloff believes it’s possible to make ripple effects through entire communities — pushing for greener schools could include things like better indoor air quality and carbon-neutral facilities, but also climate education and pathways to union jobs in renewable energy for students. In particular, Ratzloff says it’s important for environmental and labor movements to organize with younger workers, many of whom have an interest in climate justice and are often left wondering where to plug in. Across the country, workers have formed climate committees and coalitions to talk through sustainability issues and strategize on how to hold their industries accountable. In Oakland, California, in early May, teachers went on strike for the climate, demanding more environmental justice curricula and cleaner air in schools. In previous years, Los Angeles teachers walked out for similar reasons, demanding in particular support for students traumatized by wildfires and other symptoms of the global climate crisis. Social workers, who witness the impacts of systemic environmental racism on their clients, are creating initiatives to better address housing-related environmental issues such as lead paint. And just earlier this month, Waffle House employees, under the banner of United Southern Service Workers, spoke out against their employer’s support of an environmentally destructive police-training facility in Atlanta, dubbed “Cop City.” In recent years, white-collar Amazon workers — computer engineers, coders, and others — have demanded the company take responsibility for its massive carbon emissions and work to reduce them. In 2019, hundreds of Amazon employees walked off the job after the floods in Pakistan, demanding reparations to the country for the company’s outsized carbon emissions. In the past, Amazon workers have also demanded parts of the company stop doing business with the oil and gas industry. Over 1,000 Amazon workers walked out again in May for a host of reasons, among them unfulfilled demands to reduce pollution from the company’s fleet of delivery vans. Their efforts highlight both the power and risks of standing up to an employer. Amazon now has a Climate Pledge, and has begun transitioning its vehicle fleet to EVs and donating to rainforest conservation efforts. But the company has also retaliated against workers, in one case illegally firing the two women who founded Amazon Employees for Climate Justice. Workers have also called out the company for using its climate promises as greenwashing, and they continue to agitate around environmental responsibility. Ratzloff says the first step in bringing climate advocacy to any workplace is basic: Talk to your coworkers. “Identifying issues, creating solutions, and fighting for those within your workplace through collective action is incredibly important,” she says. “As individuals, we can’t make the changes that are necessary to drastically reduce carbon emissions.” Caitlyn McLaren agrees. Talking to her coworkers about climate concerns, she says, made her feel connected to them in deeper ways. And it wasn’t hard to get the ball rolling. “For us, we started just by sending out an email and saying, ‘Hey, is anyone else interested in this?’” McLaren says. Hospital workers jumped at the chance to make more meaning out of their work, and to have a broader impact on their community’s safety and health. After successfully organizing to reduce medical waste in the hospital system, the climate committee members are starting to strategize around getting their hospital to apply for Inflation Reduction Act funds, which McLaren says may support decarbonization and energy efficiency projects for nonprofit hospitals. As McLaren and her coworkers have found meaning in their environmental organizing, she says they’ve also renewed their passion for their paid work and their determination to make their workplace better for everyone in and around it. “I’m really interested in the leverage that workers have in institutions that we’re a part of,” McLaren says, “[and] being able to change practices or push our institutions to do more and to do better.” — Katie Myers More exposure Read: more about the history of organized labor and the environmental justice movement (Process) Read: more about the state of air quality and other needed infrastructure updates in schools (Educators Climate Action Network) Read: about UPS drivers demanding AC in trucks as heat waves all over the country create unsafe conditions (The City) Read: how care workers who help vulnerable populations, like the elderly and people with disabilities, are becoming first responders during disasters (Undark) See for yourself What overlaps do you see between climate change and your day job (or night job, or side hustle — or all of the above)? Have you considered talking with your coworkers about climate concerns in your industry? Reply to this email to share your thoughts. A parting shot Check out this short video from the Center for Cultural Power, an advocacy organization working at the intersection of art, culture, and social justice. (The vid was produced and directed by filmmaker Layel Camargo and voiced by singer and actress Antonique Smith, both of whom have been featured on our Grist 50 list of climate changemakers). With fun animations, it chronicles the overlap between the climate crisis, capitalism, and the exploitation of labor. IMAGE CREDITS Vision: Grist Parting Shot: The Center for Cultural Power This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Looking to join a climate community? Try your workplace. on Jun 21, 2023.

The labor movement and the environmental justice movement have a shared history — and today, workers in all kinds of sectors are banding together to call for climate action.

Welcome back to our series on personal climate action, exploring new frameworks for the question: “How do I make a difference?” So far, we’ve covered stories of people making waves by raising their voices in court and expressing their climate values during some of the most meaningful moments in their lives. This week’s piece explores the idea that one of the most powerful individual actions you might take is joining or organizing a climate community — and we’re focusing on a particular space where people are already a part of a collective that can advocate for change: the workplace.

Most of us spend a lot of time at our jobs. And even if you don’t work in an obvious climate field, just about every sector touches or is impacted by the climate crisis in some way. Grist’s climate solutions fellow Katie Myers explores how unions and other organized groups of workers are banding together over shared concerns, and using their collective power to advocate for greener, safer, and more just practices from their employers.

Illustration of three raised fists

The vision

“Our job is to organize the people. Because if you don’t organize the people, you can shout all you want, you can write all you want about a policy issue and the climate and environmental problems, but it’s not gonna go anywhere.”

Baldemar Velasquez, president of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee

The spotlight

Caitlyn McLaren is a nurse at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami. She was active in student environmental organizing while in college, but after starting full-time work in healthcare, long hours and a stressful work environment began to take their toll. Like so many, she found that she no longer could make time for climate justice organizing.

But then, about four years ago, she discovered that she could continue to be a climate advocate — at work, rather than outside of it.

“A member approached the president of our local [union chapter] and said, ‘You know, climate change is something that I’m really concerned about,’” McLaren recalls. And the SEIU 1991 Climate Committee was born.

The committee gave hospital workers a chance to discuss some of their shared concerns about the climate impacts of their industry — everything from the chemicals in use at the hospital to the massive amount of waste generated by disposable dishware to the carcinogenic smoke from the gas used to cauterize tissue in the operating room. Since the committee was formed, McLaren and her colleagues have successfully diverted over 27,000 pounds of medical waste from the landfill and installed charging stations for electric cars, with several other campaigns still active.

McLaren says being in a unionized workplace made it possible for her to get involved with environmental advocacy again. “Having a union can help with creating that space for people to actually be able to think about the big picture issues, because we’re so busy with the day-to-day grind of our job,” she says.

Often, labor unions are associated with opposition to the environmental movement, particularly the green energy transition that would take away already imperiled jobs in coal, oil, and other fossil fuels. But workers — unionized and not — have also been at the forefront of many environmental movements.

Even if we don’t think of our jobs as climate-related, most industries have climate impacts, and workers have used that fact to push their workplaces toward a more responsible relationship with the environment. Among that number are healthcare workers like McLaren, Amazon employees and Uber drivers working to reduce their companies’ emissions, steel workers pushing for a green transition, and many, many more who have seen their workplaces as sites of agitation for climate justice, and as opportunities to create a healthier world.

. . .

The phrase “environmental justice” actually has roots in the labor movement. Farm Labor Organizing Committee president Baldemar Velasquez says that the farmworkers’ movement, as well as members of a rural North Carolina Black community threatened by a proposed landfill, helped popularize the phrase at the The Michigan Conference on Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazard in 1990. With it came a growing awareness of environmental racism, and of environmental struggle as extending beyond the prevailing middle-class white concerns about conservation. Conversations about environmental issues began to focus on the impacts of industry and extraction on predominantly Black and brown, low-income, and immigrant communities.

“We were challenging the mainstream environmentalists,” Velasquez says.

And the relationship between workers and environmental justice goes back well before the origins of the phrase. In the 1960s, groups like the Memphis sanitation workers’ strike of 1968 (where Martin Luther King Jr. gave his final speech) and the immigrant-led United Farmworkers’ Organizing Committee, whose first contracts included protection from certain pesticides, spearheaded the idea that workers could rally around environmental causes, and that many environmental issues were workers’ issues, too.

Farmworkers are among the most vulnerable social groups in the United States, often migrants on visas with very few legal protections. For them, climate change is a matter of life and death, with small shifts in heat and the growing season directly impacting their ability to make a living and survive a day’s work. Today, farmworkers continue to push for climate-specific protections, including sun and heat protection, disaster insurance, and language-inclusive wildfire safety and evacuation information. Velasquez says that the Farm Labor Organizing Committee is also focused on battles with corrupt contractors and securing collective bargaining agreements for growers.

“I think that organizing, grassroots membership organizations, is the vehicle to begin to address some of these individual problems,” Velasquez says. “If there’s a worker that’s got a problem,” he adds, “I love hearing those people, because then I challenge them to do something about it.”

. . .

Liz Ratzloff, the co-director of the Labor Network for Sustainability, first entered the labor movement as a graduate student worker at the University of Michigan, where she organized for divestment from fossil fuels and to expand affordable transportation and housing. Now, she coordinates with workers and unions to organize at the intersection of climate justice and workers’ rights. She has worked with educators, postal workers, auto workers, and railroad workers, just to name a few.

“In order to build the power to be able to take on the fossil fuel industry, we need the labor movement, environmental and climate justice groups, [and] frontline and historically marginalized communities to unite around using climate action to address social inequities,” Ratzloff says. By organizing teachers, for instance, Ratzloff believes it’s possible to make ripple effects through entire communities — pushing for greener schools could include things like better indoor air quality and carbon-neutral facilities, but also climate education and pathways to union jobs in renewable energy for students.

In particular, Ratzloff says it’s important for environmental and labor movements to organize with younger workers, many of whom have an interest in climate justice and are often left wondering where to plug in. Across the country, workers have formed climate committees and coalitions to talk through sustainability issues and strategize on how to hold their industries accountable.

In Oakland, California, in early May, teachers went on strike for the climate, demanding more environmental justice curricula and cleaner air in schools. In previous years, Los Angeles teachers walked out for similar reasons, demanding in particular support for students traumatized by wildfires and other symptoms of the global climate crisis. Social workers, who witness the impacts of systemic environmental racism on their clients, are creating initiatives to better address housing-related environmental issues such as lead paint. And just earlier this month, Waffle House employees, under the banner of United Southern Service Workers, spoke out against their employer’s support of an environmentally destructive police-training facility in Atlanta, dubbed “Cop City.”

In recent years, white-collar Amazon workers — computer engineers, coders, and others — have demanded the company take responsibility for its massive carbon emissions and work to reduce them. In 2019, hundreds of Amazon employees walked off the job after the floods in Pakistan, demanding reparations to the country for the company’s outsized carbon emissions. In the past, Amazon workers have also demanded parts of the company stop doing business with the oil and gas industry.

Over 1,000 Amazon workers walked out again in May for a host of reasons, among them unfulfilled demands to reduce pollution from the company’s fleet of delivery vans.

Their efforts highlight both the power and risks of standing up to an employer. Amazon now has a Climate Pledge, and has begun transitioning its vehicle fleet to EVs and donating to rainforest conservation efforts. But the company has also retaliated against workers, in one case illegally firing the two women who founded Amazon Employees for Climate Justice. Workers have also called out the company for using its climate promises as greenwashing, and they continue to agitate around environmental responsibility.

. . .

Ratzloff says the first step in bringing climate advocacy to any workplace is basic: Talk to your coworkers. “Identifying issues, creating solutions, and fighting for those within your workplace through collective action is incredibly important,” she says. “As individuals, we can’t make the changes that are necessary to drastically reduce carbon emissions.”

Caitlyn McLaren agrees. Talking to her coworkers about climate concerns, she says, made her feel connected to them in deeper ways. And it wasn’t hard to get the ball rolling. “For us, we started just by sending out an email and saying, ‘Hey, is anyone else interested in this?’” McLaren says.

Hospital workers jumped at the chance to make more meaning out of their work, and to have a broader impact on their community’s safety and health. After successfully organizing to reduce medical waste in the hospital system, the climate committee members are starting to strategize around getting their hospital to apply for Inflation Reduction Act funds, which McLaren says may support decarbonization and energy efficiency projects for nonprofit hospitals.

As McLaren and her coworkers have found meaning in their environmental organizing, she says they’ve also renewed their passion for their paid work and their determination to make their workplace better for everyone in and around it.

“I’m really interested in the leverage that workers have in institutions that we’re a part of,” McLaren says, “[and] being able to change practices or push our institutions to do more and to do better.”

— Katie Myers

More exposure

See for yourself

What overlaps do you see between climate change and your day job (or night job, or side hustle — or all of the above)? Have you considered talking with your coworkers about climate concerns in your industry? Reply to this email to share your thoughts.

A parting shot

Check out this short video from the Center for Cultural Power, an advocacy organization working at the intersection of art, culture, and social justice. (The vid was produced and directed by filmmaker Layel Camargo and voiced by singer and actress Antonique Smith, both of whom have been featured on our Grist 50 list of climate changemakers). With fun animations, it chronicles the overlap between the climate crisis, capitalism, and the exploitation of labor.

A large white play button sits over a cartoonish image of a castle on a gray, smoky background, with the word "Capitalism" in jaunty lettering.

IMAGE CREDITS

Vision: Grist

Parting Shot: The Center for Cultural Power

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Looking to join a climate community? Try your workplace. on Jun 21, 2023.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Park Service orders changes to staff ratings, a move experts call illegal

Lower performance ratings could be used as a factor in layoff decisions and will demoralize staff, advocates say.

A top National Park Service official has instructed park superintendents to limit the number of staff who get top marks in performance reviews, according to three people familiar with the matter, a move that experts say violates federal code and could make it easier to lay off staff.Parks leadership generally evaluate individual employees annually on a five-point scale, with a three rating given to those who are successful in achieving their goals, with those exceeding expectations receiving a four and outstanding employees earning a five.Frank Lands, the deputy director of operations for the National Park System, told dozens of park superintendents on a conference call Thursday that “the preponderance of ratings should be 3s,” according to the people familiar, who were not authorized to comment publicly about the internal call.Lands said that roughly one to five percent of people should receive an outstanding rating and confirmed several times that about 80 percent should receive 3s, the people familiar said.Follow Climate & environmentThe Interior Department, which oversees the National Park Service, said in a statement Friday that “there is no percentage cap” on certain performance ratings.“We are working to normalize ratings across the agency,” the statement said. “The goal of this effort is to ensure fair, consistent performance evaluations across all of our parks and programs.”Though many employers in corporate American often instruct managers to classify a majority of employee reviews in the middle tier, the Parks Service has commonly given higher ratings to a greater proportion of employees.Performance ratings are also taken into account when determining which employees are laid off first if the agency were to go ahead with “reduction in force” layoffs, as many other departments have done this year.The order appears to violate the Code of Federal Regulations, said Tim Whitehouse, a lawyer and executive director of the nonprofit advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. The code states that the government cannot require a “forced distribution” of ratings for federal employees.“Employees are supposed to be evaluated based upon their performance, not upon a predetermined rating that doesn’t reflect how they actually performed,” he said.The Trump administration has reduced the number of parks staff this year by about 4,000 people, or roughly a quarter, according to an analysis by the National Parks Conservation Association, an advocacy group. Parks advocates say the administration is deliberately seeking to demoralize staff and failing to recognize the additional work they now have to do, given the exodus of employees through voluntary resignations and early retirements.Rep. Jared Huffman (D-California) said the move would artificially depress employee ratings:“You can’t square that with the legal requirements of the current regulations about how performance reviews are supposed to work.”Some details of the directive were first reported by E&E News.Park superintendents on the conference call objected to the order. Some questioned the fairness to employees whose work merited a better rating at a time when many staff are working harder to make up for the thousands of vacancies.“I need leaders who lead in adversity. And if you can’t do that, just let me know. I’ll do my best to find somebody that can,” Lands said in response, the people familiar with the call said.One superintendent who was on the call, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid retaliation, said in an interview that Lands’ statement “was meant to be a threat.”The superintendent said they were faced with disobeying the order and potentially being fired or illegally changing employees’ evaluations.“If we change these ratings to meet the quota and violated federal law, are we subject to removal because we violated federal law and the oath we took to protect the Constitution?” the superintendent said.Myron Ebell, a board member of the American Lands Council, an advocacy group supporting the transfer of federal lands to states and counties, defended the administration’s move.“It’s exactly the same thing as grade inflation at universities. Think about it. Not everybody can be smarter than average. If everyone is doing great, that’s average,” he said.Theresa Pierno, president and CEO of the National Parks Conservation Association, said in a statement that the policy could make it easier to lay off staff, after the administration already decimated the ranks of the parks service.“After the National Park Service was decimated by mass firings and pressured staff buyouts, park rangers have been working the equivalent of second, third, or even fourth jobs protecting parks,” Pierno said.“Guidance like this could very well be setting up their staff to be cannon fodder during the next round of mass firings. This would be an unconscionable move,” she added.

Coalmine expansions would breach climate targets, NSW government warned in ‘game-changer’ report

Environmental advocates welcome Net Zero Commission’s report which found the fossil fuel was ‘not consistent’ with emissions reductions commitments Sign up for climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s free Clear Air newsletter hereGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastThe New South Wales government has been warned it can no longer approve coalmine developments after the state’s climate agency found new expansions would be inconsistent with its legislated emissions targets.In what climate advocates described as a significant turning point in campaigns against new fossil fuel programs, the NSW Net Zero Commission said coalmine expansions were “not consistent” with the state’s legal emissions reductions commitments of a 50% cut (compared with 2005 levels) by 2030, a 70% cut by 2035, and reaching net zero by 2050.Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletter Continue reading...

The New South Wales government has been warned it can no longer approve coalmine developments after the state’s climate agency found new expansions would be inconsistent with its legislated emissions targets.In what climate advocates described as a significant turning point in campaigns against new fossil fuel programs, the NSW Net Zero Commission said coalmine expansions were “not consistent” with the state’s legal emissions reductions commitments of a 50% cut (compared with 2005 levels) by 2030, a 70% cut by 2035, and reaching net zero by 2050.The commission’s Coal Mining Emissions Spotlight Report said the government should consider the climate impact – including from the “scope 3” emissions released into the atmosphere when most of the state’s coal is exported and burned overseas – in all coalmine planning decisions.Environmental lawyer Elaine Johnson said the report was a “game-changer” as it argued coalmining was the state’s biggest contribution to the climate crisis and that new coal proposals were inconsistent with the legislated targets.She said it also found demand for coal was declining – consistent with recent analyses by federal Treasury and the advisory firm Climate Resource – and the state government must support affected communities to transition to new industries.“What all this means is that it is no longer lawful to keep approving more coalmine expansions in NSW,” Johnson wrote on social media site LinkedIn. “Let’s hope the Department of Planning takes careful note when it’s looking at the next coalmine expansion proposal.”The Lock the Gate Alliance, a community organisation that campaigns against fossil fuel developments, said the report showed changes were required to the state’s planning framework to make authorities assess emissions and climate damage when considering mine applications.It said this should apply to 18 mine expansions that have been proposed but not yet approved, including two “mega-coalmine expansions” at the Hunter Valley Operations and Maules Creek mines. Eight coalmine expansions have been approved since the Minns Labor government was elected in 2023.Lock the Gate’s Nic Clyde said NSW already had 37 coalmines and “we can’t keep expanding them indefinitely”. He called for an immediate moratorium on approving coal expansions until the commission’s findings had been implemented.“This week, multiple NSW communities have been battling dangerous bushfires, which are becoming increasingly severe due to climate change fuelled by coalmining and burning. Our safety and our survival depends on how the NSW government responds to this report,” he said.Net zero emissions is a target that has been adopted by governments, companies and other organisations to eliminate their contribution to the climate crisis. It is sometimes called “carbon neutrality”.The climate crisis is caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere, where they trap heat. They have already caused a significant increase in average global temperatures above pre-industrial levels recorded since the mid-20th century. Countries and others that set net zero emissions targets are pledging to stop their role in worsening this by cutting their climate pollution and balancing out whatever emissions remain by sucking an equivalent amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere.This could happen through nature projects – tree planting, for example – or using carbon dioxide removal technology.CO2 removal from the atmosphere is the “net” part in net zero. Scientists say some emissions will be hard to stop and will need to be offset. But they also say net zero targets will be effective only if carbon removal is limited to offset “hard to abate” emissions. Fossil use will still need to be dramatically reduced.After signing the 2015 Paris agreement, the global community asked the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to assess what would be necessary to give the world a chance of limiting global heating to 1.5C.The IPCC found it would require deep cuts in global CO2 emissions: to about 45% below 2010 levels by 2030, and to net zero by about 2050.The Climate Action Tracker has found more than 145 countries have set or are considering setting net zero emissions targets. Photograph: Ashley Cooper pics/www.alamy.comThe alliance’s national coordinator, Carmel Flint, added: “It’s not just history that will judge the government harshly if they continue approving such projects following this report. Our courts are likely to as well.”The NSW Minerals Council criticised the commission’s report. Its chief executive, Stephen Galilee, said it was a “flawed and superficial analysis” that put thousands of coalmining jobs at risk. He said some coalmines would close in the years ahead but was “no reason” not to approve outstanding applications to extend the operating life of about 10 mines.Galilee said emissions from coal in NSW were falling faster than the average rate of emission reduction across the state and were “almost fully covered” by the federal government’s safeguard mechanism policy, which required mine owners to either make annual direct emissions cuts or buy offsets.He said the NSW government should “reflect on why it provides nearly $7m annually” for the commission to “campaign against thousands of NSW mining jobs”.But the state’s main environment organisation, the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, said the commission report showed coalmining was “incompatible with a safe climate future”.“The Net Zero Commission has shone a spotlight. Now the free ride for coalmine pollution has to end,” the council’s chief executive, Jacqui Mumford, said.The state climate change and energy minister, Penny Sharpe, said the commission was established to monitor, report and provide independent advice on how the state was meeting its legislated emissions targets, and the government would consider its advice “along with advice from other groups and agencies”.

Nope, Billionaire Tom Steyer Is Not a Bellwether of Climate Politics

What should we make of billionaire Tom Steyer’s reinvention as a populist candidate for California governor, four years after garnering only 0.72 percent of the popular vote in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, despite obscene spending from his personal fortune? Is it evidence that he’s a hard man to discourage? (In that race, he dropped almost $24 million on South Carolina alone.) Is it evidence that billionaires get to do a lot of things the rest of us don’t? Or is it evidence that talking about climate change is for losers and Democrats need to abandon it?Politico seems to think it’s the third one: Steyer running a populist gubernatorial campaign means voters don’t care about global warming.“The billionaire environmental activist who built his political profile on climate change—and who wrote in his book last year that ‘climate is what matters most right now, and nothing else comes close’—didn’t mention the issue once in the video launching his campaign for California governor,” reporter Noah Baustin wrote recently. “That was no oversight.” Instead, “it reflects a political reality confronting Democrats ahead of the midterms, where onetime climate evangelists are running into an electorate more worried about the climbing cost of electricity bills and home insurance than a warming atmosphere.”It’s hard to know how to parse a sentence like this. The “climbing cost of electricity bills and home insurance” is, indisputably, a climate issue. Renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels, and home insurance is spiking because increasingly frequent and increasingly severe weather events—driven by climate change—are making large swaths of the country expensive or impossible to insure. The fact that voters are struggling to pay for utilities and insurance, therefore, is not evidence that they don’t care about climate change. Instead, it’s evidence that climate change is a kitchen table issue, and politicians are, disadvantageously, failing to embrace the obviously populist message that accompanies robust climate policy. This is a problem with Democratic messaging, not a problem with climate as a topic.The piece goes on: “Climate concern has fallen in the state over time. In 2018, when Gov. Gavin Newsom was running for office, polling found that 57 percent of likely California voters considered climate change a very serious threat to the economy and quality of life for the state’s future. Now, that figure is 50 percent.”This may sound persuasive to you. But in fact, it’s a highly selective reading of the PPIC survey data linked above. What the poll actually found is that the proportion of Californians calling climate change a “very serious” threat peaked at 57 percent in 2019, fell slightly in subsequent years, then fell precipitously by 11 points between July 2022 and July 2023, before rising similarly precipitously from July 2024 to July 2025. Why did it fall so quickly from 2022 to 2023? Sure, maybe people stopped caring about climate change. Or maybe instead, the month after the 2022 poll, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, the most significant climate policy in U.S. history, and people stopped being quite so worried. Why did concern then rise rapidly between July 2024 and July 2025? Well, between those two dates, Trump won the presidential election and proceeded, along with Republicans in Congress, to dismantle anything remotely resembling climate policy. The Inflation Reduction Act fell apart. I’m not saying this is the only way to read this data. But consider this: The percentage of respondents saying they were somewhat or very worried about members of their household being affected by natural disasters actually went up over the same period. The percentage saying air pollution was “a more serious health threat in lower-income areas” nearby went up. Those saying flooding, heat waves, and wildfires should be considered “a great deal” when siting new affordable housing rose a striking 12 percentage points from 2024 to 2025, and those “very concerned” about rising insurance costs “due to climate risks” rose 14 percentage points.This is not a portrait of an electorate that doesn’t care about climate change. It’s a portrait of an electorate that may actually be very ready to hear a politician convincingly embrace climate populism—championing affordability and better material conditions for working people, in part by protecting them from the predatory industries driving a cost-of-living crisis while poisoning people.This is part of a broader problem. Currently, there’s a big push from centrist Democratic institutions to argue that the party should abandon climate issues in order to win elections. The evidence for this is mixed, at best. As TNR’s Liza Featherstone recently pointed out, Democrats’ striking victories last month showed that candidates fusing climate policy with an energy affordability message did very well. Aaron Regunberg went into further detail on why talking about climate change is a smart strategy: “Right now,” he wrote, “neither party has a significant trust advantage on ‘electric utility bills’ (D+1) or ‘the cost of living’ (R+1). But Democrats do have major trust advantages on ‘climate change’ (D+14) and ‘renewable energy development’ (D+6). By articulating how their climate and clean energy agenda can address these bread-and-butter concerns, Democrats can leverage their advantage on climate to win voters’ trust on what will likely be the most significant issues in 2026 and 2028.”One of the troubles with climate change in political discourse is that some people’s understanding of environmental politics begins and ends with the spotted owl logging battles in the 1990s. This is the sort of attitude that drives the assumption that affordability policy and climate policy are not only distinct but actually opposed. But that’s wildly disconnected from present reality. Maybe Tom Steyer isn’t the guy to illustrate that! But his political fortunes, either way, don’t say much at all about climate messaging more broadly.Stat of the Week3x as many infant deathsA new study finds that babies of mothers “whose drinking water wells were downstream of PFAS releases” died at almost three times the rate in their first year of life as babies of mothers who did not live downstream of PFAS contamination. Read The Washington Post’s report on the study here.What I’m ReadingMore than 200 environmental groups demand halt to new US datacentersAn open letter calls on Congress to pause all approvals of new data centers until regulation catches up, due to problems such as data centers’ voracious energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and water use. From The Guardian’s report:The push comes amid a growing revolt against moves by companies such as Meta, Google and Open AI to plow hundreds of billions of dollars into new datacenters, primarily to meet the huge computing demands of AI. At least 16 datacenter projects, worth a combined $64bn, have been blocked or delayed due to local opposition to rising electricity costs. The facilities’ need for huge amounts of water to cool down equipment has also proved controversial, particularly in drier areas where supplies are scarce.These seemingly parochial concerns have now multiplied to become a potent political force, helping propel Democrats to a series of emphatic recent electoral successes in governor elections in Virginia and New Jersey as well as a stunning upset win in a special public service commission poll in Georgia, with candidates campaigning on lowering power bill costs and curbing datacenters.Read Oliver Milman’s full report at The Guardian.This article first appeared in Life in a Warming World, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Heather Souvaine Horn. Sign up here.

What should we make of billionaire Tom Steyer’s reinvention as a populist candidate for California governor, four years after garnering only 0.72 percent of the popular vote in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, despite obscene spending from his personal fortune? Is it evidence that he’s a hard man to discourage? (In that race, he dropped almost $24 million on South Carolina alone.) Is it evidence that billionaires get to do a lot of things the rest of us don’t? Or is it evidence that talking about climate change is for losers and Democrats need to abandon it?Politico seems to think it’s the third one: Steyer running a populist gubernatorial campaign means voters don’t care about global warming.“The billionaire environmental activist who built his political profile on climate change—and who wrote in his book last year that ‘climate is what matters most right now, and nothing else comes close’—didn’t mention the issue once in the video launching his campaign for California governor,” reporter Noah Baustin wrote recently. “That was no oversight.” Instead, “it reflects a political reality confronting Democrats ahead of the midterms, where onetime climate evangelists are running into an electorate more worried about the climbing cost of electricity bills and home insurance than a warming atmosphere.”It’s hard to know how to parse a sentence like this. The “climbing cost of electricity bills and home insurance” is, indisputably, a climate issue. Renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels, and home insurance is spiking because increasingly frequent and increasingly severe weather events—driven by climate change—are making large swaths of the country expensive or impossible to insure. The fact that voters are struggling to pay for utilities and insurance, therefore, is not evidence that they don’t care about climate change. Instead, it’s evidence that climate change is a kitchen table issue, and politicians are, disadvantageously, failing to embrace the obviously populist message that accompanies robust climate policy. This is a problem with Democratic messaging, not a problem with climate as a topic.The piece goes on: “Climate concern has fallen in the state over time. In 2018, when Gov. Gavin Newsom was running for office, polling found that 57 percent of likely California voters considered climate change a very serious threat to the economy and quality of life for the state’s future. Now, that figure is 50 percent.”This may sound persuasive to you. But in fact, it’s a highly selective reading of the PPIC survey data linked above. What the poll actually found is that the proportion of Californians calling climate change a “very serious” threat peaked at 57 percent in 2019, fell slightly in subsequent years, then fell precipitously by 11 points between July 2022 and July 2023, before rising similarly precipitously from July 2024 to July 2025. Why did it fall so quickly from 2022 to 2023? Sure, maybe people stopped caring about climate change. Or maybe instead, the month after the 2022 poll, Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act, the most significant climate policy in U.S. history, and people stopped being quite so worried. Why did concern then rise rapidly between July 2024 and July 2025? Well, between those two dates, Trump won the presidential election and proceeded, along with Republicans in Congress, to dismantle anything remotely resembling climate policy. The Inflation Reduction Act fell apart. I’m not saying this is the only way to read this data. But consider this: The percentage of respondents saying they were somewhat or very worried about members of their household being affected by natural disasters actually went up over the same period. The percentage saying air pollution was “a more serious health threat in lower-income areas” nearby went up. Those saying flooding, heat waves, and wildfires should be considered “a great deal” when siting new affordable housing rose a striking 12 percentage points from 2024 to 2025, and those “very concerned” about rising insurance costs “due to climate risks” rose 14 percentage points.This is not a portrait of an electorate that doesn’t care about climate change. It’s a portrait of an electorate that may actually be very ready to hear a politician convincingly embrace climate populism—championing affordability and better material conditions for working people, in part by protecting them from the predatory industries driving a cost-of-living crisis while poisoning people.This is part of a broader problem. Currently, there’s a big push from centrist Democratic institutions to argue that the party should abandon climate issues in order to win elections. The evidence for this is mixed, at best. As TNR’s Liza Featherstone recently pointed out, Democrats’ striking victories last month showed that candidates fusing climate policy with an energy affordability message did very well. Aaron Regunberg went into further detail on why talking about climate change is a smart strategy: “Right now,” he wrote, “neither party has a significant trust advantage on ‘electric utility bills’ (D+1) or ‘the cost of living’ (R+1). But Democrats do have major trust advantages on ‘climate change’ (D+14) and ‘renewable energy development’ (D+6). By articulating how their climate and clean energy agenda can address these bread-and-butter concerns, Democrats can leverage their advantage on climate to win voters’ trust on what will likely be the most significant issues in 2026 and 2028.”One of the troubles with climate change in political discourse is that some people’s understanding of environmental politics begins and ends with the spotted owl logging battles in the 1990s. This is the sort of attitude that drives the assumption that affordability policy and climate policy are not only distinct but actually opposed. But that’s wildly disconnected from present reality. Maybe Tom Steyer isn’t the guy to illustrate that! But his political fortunes, either way, don’t say much at all about climate messaging more broadly.Stat of the Week3x as many infant deathsA new study finds that babies of mothers “whose drinking water wells were downstream of PFAS releases” died at almost three times the rate in their first year of life as babies of mothers who did not live downstream of PFAS contamination. Read The Washington Post’s report on the study here.What I’m ReadingMore than 200 environmental groups demand halt to new US datacentersAn open letter calls on Congress to pause all approvals of new data centers until regulation catches up, due to problems such as data centers’ voracious energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and water use. From The Guardian’s report:The push comes amid a growing revolt against moves by companies such as Meta, Google and Open AI to plow hundreds of billions of dollars into new datacenters, primarily to meet the huge computing demands of AI. At least 16 datacenter projects, worth a combined $64bn, have been blocked or delayed due to local opposition to rising electricity costs. The facilities’ need for huge amounts of water to cool down equipment has also proved controversial, particularly in drier areas where supplies are scarce.These seemingly parochial concerns have now multiplied to become a potent political force, helping propel Democrats to a series of emphatic recent electoral successes in governor elections in Virginia and New Jersey as well as a stunning upset win in a special public service commission poll in Georgia, with candidates campaigning on lowering power bill costs and curbing datacenters.Read Oliver Milman’s full report at The Guardian.This article first appeared in Life in a Warming World, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Heather Souvaine Horn. Sign up here.

Takeaways From AP’s Report on Potential Impacts of Alaska’s Proposed Ambler Access Road

A proposed mining road in Northwest Alaska has sparked debate amid climate change impacts

AMBLER, Alaska (AP) — In Northwest Alaska, a proposed mining road has become a flashpoint in a region already stressed by climate change. The 211-mile (340-kilometer) Ambler Access Road would cut through Gates of the Arctic National Park and cross 11 major rivers and thousands of streams relied on for salmon and caribou. The Trump administration approved the project this fall, setting off concerns over how the Inupiaq subsistence way of life can survive amid rapid environmental change. Many fear the road could push the ecosystem past a breaking point yet also recognize the need for jobs. A strategically important mineral deposit The Ambler Mining District holds one of the largest undeveloped sources of copper, zinc, lead, silver and gold in North America. Demand for minerals used in renewable energy is expected to grow, though most copper mined in the U.S. currently goes to construction — not green technologies. Critics say the road raises broader questions about who gets to decide the terms of mineral extraction on Indigenous lands. Climate change has already devastated subsistence resources Northwest Alaska is warming about four times faster than the global average — a shift that has already upended daily life. The Western Arctic Caribou Herd, once nearly half a million strong, has fallen 66% in two decades to around 164,000 animals. Warmer temperatures delay cold and snow, disrupting migration routes and keeping caribou high in the Brooks Range where hunters can’t easily reach them.Salmon runs have suffered repeated collapses as record rainfall, warmer rivers and thawing permafrost transform once-clear streams. In some areas, permafrost thaw has released metals into waterways, adding to the stress on already fragile fish populations.“Elders who’ve lived here their entire lives have never seen environmental conditions like this,” one local environmental official said. The road threatens what remains The Ambler road would cross a vast, largely undisturbed region to reach major deposits of copper, zinc and other minerals. Building it would require nearly 50 bridges, thousands of culverts and more than 100 truck trips a day during peak operations. Federal biologists warn naturally occurring asbestos could be kicked up by passing trucks and settle onto waterways and vegetation that caribou rely on. The Bureau of Land Management designated some 1.2 million acres of nearby salmon spawning and caribou calving habitat as “critical environmental concern.”Mining would draw large volumes of water from lakes and rivers, disturb permafrost and rely on a tailings facility to hold toxic slurry. With record rainfall becoming more common, downstream communities fear contamination of drinking water and traditional foods.Locals also worry the road could eventually open to the public, inviting outside hunters into an already stressed ecosystem. Many point to Alaska’s Dalton Highway, which opened to public use despite earlier promises it would remain private.Ambler Metals, the company behind the mining project, says it uses proven controls for work in permafrost and will treat all water the mine has contact with to strict standards. The company says it tracks precipitation to size facilities for heavier rainfall. A potential economic lifeline For some, the mine represents opportunity in a region where gasoline can cost nearly $18 a gallon and basic travel for hunting has become prohibitively expensive. Supporters argue mining jobs could help people stay in their villages, which face some of the highest living costs in the country.Ambler mayor Conrad Douglas summed up the tension: “I don’t really know how much the state of Alaska is willing to jeopardize our way of life, but the people do need jobs.”The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environmentCopyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.